I'm sure respect will get all upset because you mentioned slavery. Of course Respect still insists that the baker was not in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's Title 2.<quoted text>
Just because something has historical precedent, does not mean that it is right or just. At one time, there had always been slavery in the United States of America, Women had never been able to vote, schools had always been segregated, interracial marriage had never been allowed etc.
The constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union, and homosexuals are people, plain and simple.
Somehow Respect has convinced himself that using religion to justify denying service somehow isn't religious discrimination, even though that ius the legal definition of religious discrimination.
Respect wants everyone to be all warm and fuzzy over CO civil unions and insists the law is valid yet he does a complete about face when it comes to public accommodations laws in CO.
It's sad watching him try to insist that one law is valid under the U.S. Constitution and the other isn't.
He uses States Rights to justify CO civil unions law then refuses to apply States Rights to laws governing Public accommodations and anti-discrimination statutes.
IOW Respect has become an expert at talking out of both sides of his ass.